Campaign group vows to fight on after losing first round of battle to prevent new quarry near Peterborough.

The controversial planning application for mineral extraction at Elton Quarry, near Warmington, has been part-resolved with Northamptonshire County Council Development Control Committee unanimously approving the first of three applications.

Speaking after the recent online meeting – which lasted for nearly five hours – John Godsland, from the protestor group ‘No To Warmington Quarry’, said: “Obviously we’re devastated at the result. Right from the start everybody in Warmington and Elton were against this, and despite long protests from villagers, the Parish Councils, even our MPs, our voices have fallen on deaf ears who, it seems, only listen to the sound of money.

“People, and protecting the countryside don’t seem to matter anymore. This area is one of outstanding natural beauty – even the applicant agrees to that – so we’re not NIMBY’s, we are just trying to protect a small piece of the countryside from devastating destruction that we feel it cannot ever recover from, despite all the promises of restoration.”

Campaigner, and Warmington resident, Amy Lindley said: “We will now find a way to raise the money to lodge an appeal against this because NCC have let us down dreadfully with this decision.

“If they thought we would simply accept their decision then they really don’t know us at all – we have all vowed to fight on, no matter what the cost may be, we feel that strongly about saving this piece of England from devastation”.

No To Warmington Quarry say the application for the proposed site is based on a false premise, being referred to as ‘Elton Quarry Extension’.

Ms Lindley adding: “There’s never been a quarry at Elton, so to claim in the application that this is an extension gives the impression that there’s a similar site nearby, and that simply isn’t true.

“This was falsely promoted by the quarry Agent/Developer to NCC, stating the site was an ‘extension’ to an ‘existing’ quarry, but the applications were made without any of the appropriate community consultation that would’ve revealed this.”

After the committee announced approval for the application, Amy Linley said: “The next time you see me I shall be tied to a digger. I hope the committee members all sleep well at night. I have nothing but contempt for them all.”

While Gillian Beeby, another villager who had protested, added; “I will be starting a crowd-funding page with immediate effect for a Judicial Review.”
Corby MP Tom Pursglove has expressed support for No To Warmington Quarry, as has  The Environment Agency, The Wildlife Trust, The Campaign To Protect Rural England, with more than 100 objections to the proposals received from the general public.

The meeting, shown live on YouTube, had more than 30 objectors speaking to the committee, while some 235 watchers – almost the entire population on the two villages – voiced their disapproval of events in the ‘chat box’, posting comments such as ‘Shame on NCC councillors’ and ‘spineless bureaucrats’.

The applicant, Ingrebourne Valley Ltd, had brought the planning application (NCC 19/00033/MINFUL and ENC 19/00856/NCC), seeking permission for the extraction and processing of 850,000-900,000 tonnes sand and gravel, and the importation of suitable inert materials to restore the site back to agricultural pasture land with new wet woodland planting.

This part of the application was approved, and follows months of questions raised about how the land (once owned by Lord Proby of Elton Hall Estate), came to be a part of Northamptonshire County Council’s Mineral and Waste Local Plan.

In addition, the scheme involves the requested continued use of the retained access to the A605 and plant site including a new modern low-level processing plant to process the excavated mineral from the extension area as well as the treatment of a proportion of the imported reclamation materials in order to make these suitable for restoration with limited production of recycled products.

The applicant estimates the development, as proposed, will take a period of nine years, with a further 12 months thereafter to allow for the completion of full reclamation.

After five hours, and with the committee having run out of time, it was decided to postpone the remaining two decisions to a date which has yet to be announced.